On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:17:03 -0700, Swingman wrote
Proprietary is when a company develops and keeps secret some technology or IP
(that is intellectual property, not internet protocol just to be sure you
understand). They guard this as a company secret. If you understood the
computer industry you would get it.
Apple has had the protocol open to third party vendors to facilitate
deployment and acceptance. When a protocol is termed "proprietary" it is in
terms of a single entity directing development.
But you don't seem able to grasp that protocols exist to transport other
protocols (i.e. IP-internet protocol for the slow). You will find methods and
identifiers to tell other network stack levels what standard protocol is
Sure! They are the developer. If it is non standard why would they even
bother eh? Look at Microsoft, they are the epitome of proprietary.
You just don't seem able to defend your claim that Appletalk is not a
networking standard. You just come up with a bunch of Dan Ratherian excuses
"it a lie but i'll tell it anyway"
You don't seem to grasp that PPP can both transport TCP/IP and be transported
Yeah right, you still are avoiding my initial question.
Suffering from CRS???? you said it's not a networking standard.
yeah right! You seem to agree with the 'Wrecks esteemed wordsmith Mr. Watson
that Excel is an industry standard (de-facto, which I would agree) but you
are based against AppleTalk??? You must have tried to network one too many MS
>"networking standard" in the industry is as laughable as it is ridiculous.
>(And that is a reality based FACT, which only a fool would argue against.)
Care to explain????
Sure thing, Bruce. Don't mind explaining that at all ... it means that since
you're arguing against the fact that AppleTalk is not an industry standard,
you qualify as a fool. Now go play somewhere else where you may have a
chance to convince someone it is ... you've failed miserably here.
You are probably thinking of IEEE who designates worldwide standards.
e.g. IEEE 802.3 more commonly known as Ethernet.
The numerical specification refers to the date which this worldwide
networking specification was adopted - February, 1980 - almost a quarter
century! (the part to the left of the decimal refers to topology).
No. The IETF is the Internet Engineering Task Force. They are the
ones responsible for numbering RFC's, which specify how the Internet
RFC's are Request For Comments, and the standards are described in
# RFC 1123 - Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support
# RFC 1122 - Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers
It's filled with words such as SHOULD, MAY and MUST.
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Rarely is anything all bad or all good. The point is that we inarguably
have, for better or worse, like it or not, what amounts to a "standard" for
which programmers can write and be assured that their code will run on most
of the personal computers in the world, thereby greatly increasing chances
of success; and driver standards that pretty well insure OS, hardware, and
peripheral compatibility for those personal computers.
The latter should be readily obvious to anyone who lived through the times
when that was not the case, but is a fact that seems to be ignored in favor
of the knee-jerk bashing mentality.
I am far from being an apologist for any big corporation, but as I said,
rarely is anything all bad, as most of the knee-jerk, perspective challenged
bashers would have you believe.
Ummmm... Unix is "standard" ????
I been in this computer crapolla for quite a few years
myself and which of the just over 200 variants of Unix
is the "standard version" ????
and while I'm at it.... just when did a collection of
utility programs called Windows get to be a OS ???
Mike Marlow wrote:
They all are. A _good_ Unix sysadmin can speak to any of them
with a minimum of retraining between. And nearly all of the
current flavors of unix can be used to build the same tools
from the same sourcecode.
When it went from being the shell to being the kernel, which
would be when they went from the win95/98/98SE/ME world to
the WinNT/win2K/winXP/win2003 world, I think.
All the _good_ Unix sysadmins I know are religious bigots who won't
dirty their hands with BSD / anything other than BSD. And as for the
HP-UX / Solaris / SGI freakiness.
There's more to it than just DeadRat vs. Suse vs. Debian
Hm, you must know a different group of Unix guys than I do. Yeah,
there are the prima-donnas who will only work on their favorite
whatever, but that's a good thing to screen out in job interviews.
I mean, VI or EMACS, yeah, but if they recoil at hearing FreeBSD
and do the "I only do OPENBSD, thank you very much!" kind of
thing, then, well, the interview is effectively over. If the
response is "Well, I've done OpenBSD and NetBSD, and I understand
that Free differs in this, that, and another way, but I know where
the man pages are", then sure.
Ehhh... it's all the same enough. I'm mostly Sun these days,
but have done a ton of all of 'em. Just fire up the
Unix Rosetta Stone when I forget what something is called or
where it is, or use the Purple Book, and we're good to go.
I've got two of the three of those in production too. Right
tool for the right job, y'know?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.